San Francisco considering banning circumcision
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Risking TMI, I'm going to speak as a guy who decided to get circumcised when I was 18.Worgen said:
For all the talk about sex being less pleasurable for those circumsized, maybe, scientifically speaking, I've fewer nerve endings, but sex is just as good as I remember it being before I got my johnson trimmed. Same with masturbation. The pleasure it is still just fine and does not feel in decline even after more than a decade of swinging around unsheathed.
Keeping it clean was never a huge chore to begin with, but it's been substantially easier since.
I don't really know that there's any great benefit to it, but it was a step towards helping me change what I wanted to about my body.
---
On the issue at large and in SF, I am typically a strong proponent of individual liberty... in this case, it should be NEITHER the government NOR the parent's decision, but the child when they come of age and, understanding the procedure, desire such a modification.
I agree of the separation of church and state, but if it is harming people, then the state sets in.Twilight_guy said:
- child polygamy
- female circumcision in some countries in Africa
so if I start a church that says that all females must have their earlobes removed people would be protesting in the streets. The ear lobe has absolutely no function at all.
if the state is protecting children then religion should be taken out of the argument and the protection of the child should be all that matters.
watch the episode of Penn & Tellers Bullsh1t and see what kind of pain the child goes through. not just a simple snip....
I would love to hear the rest of your response.Avatar Roku said:
As for your comment regarding Judaism: first, Judaism is not the only religion that requires circumcision. In fact, it isn't even the largest religion that requires it - not by a long shot. Many of the related religions do make blanket statements about sex being a pretty negative thing. As for Judaism specifically, to suggest that your interpretation of a positive stance toward sex is universal among adherents is just silly.
And that's completely ignoring the fact that any positivity towards sex in Judaism is extremely circumscribed. To suggest that Judaism takes a positive view of the whole of sexuality is completely unreasonable.
The fact that it's part of your identity is also a pretty poor justification. Cutting off a child's ear might support my religious identity, but that wouldn't make it remotely ethical. And the mechanical parallel is actually pretty good: you can still hear without an ear, but it has a very important function and there's no real reason to do it.
As for the opinion, most of it was explicitly so. The parts regarding biology, however, were not. There are nerves in the foreskin and most circumcisions also excise additional nerves in the penis (often an absolutely remarkable proportion of them). The foreskin also has a mechanical function in sex. Claims that circumcision has no effect on sexual function are founded on the ridiculous idea that proper sexual function is the ability to maintain an erection and ejaculate. You cannot possibly make the argument that circumcision doesn't have a detrimental effect on sexual pleasure - you are provably wrong: nerve tissue is excised. At this point, people like to bring up evidence involving the effect of neural plasticity on sexual response and the fact that the brain compensates for the loss of nerve tissue, but those are mostly isolated cases and in none of them is there any evidence that the level of sensation regained is identical to that of before the loss (where there is evidence either way, it is universally the other way).
And if you want to argue that there are health benefits - you pretty much just lose. Cleanliness is simply not an issue so long as a boy is taught good hygiene and isn't such a large issue even if they aren't (when a kid hits a certain point refusing to clean themselves, you go to a counselor, you don't cut off the relevant body part). The claims regarding disease prevention are already tenuous (and many are related to absurdly rare conditions like penile cancer). The HIV claims specifically are outdated and not at all well accepted by HIV researchers. Essentially the only people who still believe them are those grasping at straws to justify circumcision. And most of the more common problems can be corrected with adult circumcision, which is a common and ridiculously simple surgery. The fact that it's even more successful on infants is not only a bad justification given how simple adult circumcision is, but, barring those affected by body size, most surgeries are more successful on infants and it's not as though we're cutting off arms in case kids develop bone cancer.
...my captcha had transliterated Hebrew in it. Irony?
There are plenty of arguements for and against it. An uncircumcised penis is apparently harder to keep clean and "gross" by some standards, while circumcised penises are supposedly easier to clean but less sensitive. Because every arguement for it seems to have an equally valid arguement against it, I think it should remain the parents' decision.
I think the real issue here is wheather or not a city can decide to ban what has already been established as a parent's choice, which I believe they shouldn't (especially San Francisco).
I think the real issue here is wheather or not a city can decide to ban what has already been established as a parent's choice, which I believe they shouldn't (especially San Francisco).
The difference being that certain actions are socially unacceptable and thus raise enough ire that the government steps in. The government can pass laws that in theory violate the bill of rights but general the court only passes it if there is a very good reason to. Such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater present a danger to everyone so you lose part of your freedom of speech in order to protect people. A good number of laws passed to control the rights of parents were passed to protect children from potential dangerous actions by their parents. These actions are socially defined as "bad" and thus the court sees a reason to prevent them.utopaline said:
That's not true here. Even the article notes "The leading proponent of a ban, Lloyd Schofield, 59, acknowledged circumcision is widely socially accepted but he said it should still be outlawed." This is socially acceptable and thus the court has no strong public outcry to act on. If they do pass the law it would be passing judgement on the practice not based on public opinion but based on their own opinion and that of a minority. Now I'm not saying that a minority can't be right but it is very shaky grounds to suddenly be potential flying in the face of the Bill of Rights based on this. This is not an accepted socially wrong thing that is being crusaded its something that the group wants banned. I'm also not saying that it isn't painful. I'm sure it is. But isn't getting your ears pierced also painful and a mutilation and yet don't parents control whether that happens to a child too?
Good! I'm glad to see it go. All Circumcision was at the start was a way to stop little boys from masturbating as it decreases sexual pleasure and that is the truth. Hell no body does it for religion any more! No body does it for religion in the slightest. Women don't even know when they're deciding whether to circumcise the boy what they're doing. It's even worse here in Alaska as insurance pays for it here so everybody does it. The women naturally go, "Well his father was circumcised so I might as well do it to him." The father probably wasn't even circumcised but she has no idea what kind of physical trauma she unleashes on her child. It's traumatizing to an infant and fucking hurts.
As for it causing diseases all I ever see is people saying that it "reduces the risk of contracting HIV" Or "Chlamydia" or "Genital Warts" Or what not. You know the other, better way to not contracting HIV? NOT SLEEPING WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS HIV. Get you and your partner tested and if you still want to do it wear a goddamn condom. Circumcision is something that should never be done ever. My mother is a nurse and when patients ask exactly what the hell circumcision is she tells them and it causes them to back off once they learn the truth.
-NEVER CIRCUMCISE YOUR CHILD.
As for it causing diseases all I ever see is people saying that it "reduces the risk of contracting HIV" Or "Chlamydia" or "Genital Warts" Or what not. You know the other, better way to not contracting HIV? NOT SLEEPING WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS HIV. Get you and your partner tested and if you still want to do it wear a goddamn condom. Circumcision is something that should never be done ever. My mother is a nurse and when patients ask exactly what the hell circumcision is she tells them and it causes them to back off once they learn the truth.
-NEVER CIRCUMCISE YOUR CHILD.
I don't really give a crap what you think it sounds like.marfoir(IRL) said:
I'm pissed off because people are still doing this to babies who don't even have the mental faculties to understand what exactly is being done to them.
I'm pissed off because apparently people have decided they know better than the thousands of years of nature.
I love my parents, but I feel they betrayed me in that instance.
As a circumsized person (it was not for religion as far as I know) I am pro-circumcision. Uncut penises look gross and its apparently alot of extra work that I am glad I do not have to deal with. And also as someone attracted to men, uncut ones look disgusting, and honestly it would be difficult for me to be sexually active with someone uncircumcised.
I liked what one comic said "It should not ne a choice for the man, it should be up to those he wants to sleep with"
As for letting them decide when they are old enough...Im much happier not remembering it.
I liked what one comic said "It should not ne a choice for the man, it should be up to those he wants to sleep with"
As for letting them decide when they are old enough...Im much happier not remembering it.
It should be kept but it shouldn't be forced on people under 18, it's not the parents body so they really have no right to chose such decisions especially for such a long term decision. However if people still want to do it, they should be able to when they are old enough to make such a choice.
Personally I think if you want to cut up your junk, make sex less pleasurable and make masturbation more difficult then you are making a bad decision.
Personally I think if you want to cut up your junk, make sex less pleasurable and make masturbation more difficult then you are making a bad decision.
Call me ignorant but what is the problem? Why would it be made illegal? Surely there isn't anything different with it.
Anyway San Fransisco is known to have wierd laws. It is illegal there to wash your car with a pair of dirty underwear. Seriously. You can't make something like that up.
Anyway San Fransisco is known to have wierd laws. It is illegal there to wash your car with a pair of dirty underwear. Seriously. You can't make something like that up.
I have no problems with people being grossed out by what I do in bed. Cause what they do grosses me out. And like them, they dotn have to date who they dont want to. Making circumscision illegal is more like your example than mine. Some people like uncut. I dont. Id rather there be both than making one or the other mandatory.jedizero said:
Wouldn't it be more traumatizing to be circumcised later in life at a point where you are actually able to remember it, and be effected emotionally by the change it has on your body. I mean if you're going to get circumcised ever it almost seems like it would be best to do it when you're an infant because you won't remember it later at all.
It's never bothered me anyway.
It's never bothered me anyway.
That's the thing, goddammit. This isn't about making it so you can't ever do it, its about ensuring you can't fucking do it to your baby who has NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER.Saelune said:
As someone who is 'cut', and hates the fact that he is, I can say that there is nothing more frustrating than realizing that apparently your safety wasn't foremost in everyone's mind, what was foremost was getting rid of that 'icky protective skin'
Subconscious pain, and trauma, NEVER GOES AWAY. Not even with shit that happened as a baby. The subconscious never lets anything go. As an adult, you can say 'I choose to do this. I accept what will happen.' As a baby when its done to you, you don't realize its been done for a long time. Then when you research, and find out *why* it was done...that's when I got so horrified at what had been done to me.Horkeldorf said:
There's also the fact that the babies often don't have any anesthetic applied, an adult however can have sooooo many pain killers.
If circumcision is banned in San Francisco, does that mean that when I enter the city I become a victim of a crime? 